[*1]
WCM Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Bernstein
2017 NY Slip Op 50415(U) [55 Misc 3d 131(A)]
Decided on March 28, 2017
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 28, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ.
2014-1549 S C

WCM Plumbing & Heating Corp., Respondent,

against

Barry M. Bernstein, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the Suffolk County Court (Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr., J.), entered August 23, 2013. The judgment, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the total sum of $9,848.07 on plaintiff's cause of action for breach of contract. The appeal was transferred to this court by decision and order of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, dated March 13, 2014.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $6,873.44, based on, among other things, breach of contract or quantum meruit. The sum represented


the amount allegedly due plaintiff for installing a boiler and performing other related heating services at defendant's home in the Town of Southampton. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, finding that the parties had entered into an oral agreement and that defendant, by failing to pay, had breached the contract. The jury did not deliberate with respect to plaintiff's quantum meruit cause of action. On appeal, defendant argues, among other things, that plaintiff should not have been permitted to recover since its owner, Paul Haines, was unlicensed.

In installing a boiler, Haines, a plumber, acting on behalf of plaintiff corporation, performed a home improvement at defendant's premises (see Town of Southampton Code § 143-1 [A]). However, Haines was not required to obtain a home improvement license, since Town of Southampton Code § 143-3 (D) exempts from the home improvement license requirement a plumber who is "required by state or Town law to attain standards of competency or experience as a prerequisite to engaging in such craft or profession and who is acting exclusively within the scope of the craft or profession for which he is currently licensed." Here, pursuant to the Town of Southampton Code § 143-15, Haines was required to obtain standards of competency, prior to engaging in his craft. Specifically, section 143-15 required Haines to obtain both a valid plumbing license from the Suffolk County Office of Consumer Affairs and a registration certificate from the Licensing Review Board prior to engaging in any such business within the Town of Southampton. There is no dispute that Haines had a plumber's license from the Suffolk County Office of Consumer Affairs; however, he did not have a registration certificate from the Licensing Review Board while performing the work for defendant.

Plaintiff's violation of the local licensing law (Town of Southampton Code § 143-15) provides no basis to deny plaintiff recovery for the services shown to have been rendered (see [*2]Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp. [Dakar Devs.], 232 AD2d 62 [1997]; Del Carlo v Staten Is. Little League, Inc., 45 Misc 3d 5 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Turner v Parfumetics.Com, Inc., 35 Misc 3d 131[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50684[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). The violation of the registration certificate requirement is merely malum prohibitum and does not render the contract illegal and unenforceable. This is especially true where, as here, the ordinance does not provide that its violation will deprive the party who has no registration certificate of the right to sue under the contract, the registration certificate requirement appears to be a revenue raising measure, and the denial of relief is wholly out of proportion to the requirements of public policy (see Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp. (Dakar Devs.), 232 AD2d 62; cf. Lloyd Capital Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., 80 NY2d 124 [1992]; Simaee v Levi, 22 AD3d 559 [1992]).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: March 28, 2017